So just curious, do people here talking about all these hate groups consider the Boy Scouts of America a hate group for their policy of exclusion? Because, let me tell you, if you were to boycott every company who donated to BSA, you probably couldn't do anything in the US.
I'm still kind of boggled that he considers people fanatics for supporting civil rights.
No, that was merely a poorly-worded lumping together of people who are really, really involved in the LGBT movement vs. people who are just general supporters. I was using fanatic in their passion for the cause, which admittedly was not a good choice. Not everyone who supports civil rights is a fanatic, but you can't argue that there are fanatics in every single cause, whether or not it is a righteous one or not. Just because fanatic has a negative connotation in some circles doesn't mean it doesn't apply: "a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics." But like I said, I rescind it in this case.
Smoogy on
Smoogy-1689
3DS Friend Code: 1821-8991-4141
PAD ID: 376,540,262
So just curious, do people here talking about all these hate groups consider the Boy Scouts of America a hate group for their policy of exclusion? Because, let me tell you, if you were to boycott every company who donated to BSA, you probably couldn't do anything in the US.
The only options here are "Live like an Amish person" or "Support everyone no matter what" ? Really?
So just curious, do people here talking about all these hate groups consider the Boy Scouts of America a hate group for their policy of exclusion? Because, let me tell you, if you were to boycott every company who donated to BSA, you probably couldn't do anything in the US.
Does BSA donate to groups that are lobbying public policy against homosexuals?
0
Options
CyrondinI bring the sick beats on you, brotherChicago, ILRegistered Userregular
So just curious, do people here talking about all these hate groups consider the Boy Scouts of America a hate group for their policy of exclusion? Because, let me tell you, if you were to boycott every company who donated to BSA, you probably couldn't do anything in the US.
I'm still kind of boggled that he considers people fanatics for supporting civil rights.
No, that was merely a poorly-worded lumping together of people who are really, really involved in the LGBT movement vs. people who are just general supporters. I was using fanatic in their passion for the cause, which admittedly was not a good choice. Not everyone who supports civil rights is a fanatic, but you can't argue that there are fanatics in every single cause, whether or not it is a righteous one or not. Just because fanatic has a negative connotation in some circles doesn't mean it doesn't apply: "a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics." But like I said, I rescind it in this case.
I'm sorry, but why is it ridiculous to boycott CFA just because of the comments of the owner? He said some very horribly bigoted things about homosexuals. That's not cool, right?
i mean, what if he said that blacks and whites shouldn't be allowed to marry or that women shouldn't be able to vote. Would that be bad enough that it is okay to say, "fuck that guy and his company?" I get that there are still a ton of anti-homosexual bigots in this country, but that doesn't mean we should send in the rhetorical white flag when we are fundamentally right.
I would find it a bit over-the-top mainly because what the owner says doesn't represent what managers or franchise owners think, do, and say. It doesn't necessarily represent corporate policy or where corporate money goes. Having corporate money (not just money from the owner's pocket, but money from the corporate budget) go to marginalizing causes becomes a company-wide issue that shows it's not just about saying goosey things, it's about actively funding goosey causes. I should clarify that I'm speaking specifically of vocal, nation-wide boycotts, not just "I heard so-and-so say this thing and that really rubs me the wrong way, so I'm not going there anymore" personal boycotts. Disclaimer: I'm not a big boycotting type person, anyway, which informs my perception of motivations for boycotts, I'm sure. This is largely because a lot of boycotts I've witnessed have seemed permeated with drama-queen attitudes (across the ideological board), and because I get tired of the "Look how dumb they are for boycotting that company I think is doing the right thing--Oh that company is doing a terrible thing: boycott them!" attitudes. I make personal choices to support businesses that do things I agree with when I can and avoid ones that don't when I'm able, but I'm not big on the organized boycott scene, so I will admit to having a more critical view of boycotts over what someone said that over what someone is actively doing.
Also, CNN's current search result on Google on the issue frames it in light of free speech, adding to ignoring the corporate donations issue.
CFA owner is a bigot. I don't want my money going to him. I don't owe CFA my business, it is their job to convince me to buy from them. Their owner being an open bigot works against that goal.
That is basically my line of thought regarding the issue. We can wax about the whether or not boycotts work until the cows come home, and we would get no where. However, it is historically clear that applying social and financial pressure to people with bigoted views works in suppressing bigotry. In that regard I see no reason a person should buy products owned by anti-homosexuals, segregationists, or anti-suffragists.
So just curious, do people here talking about all these hate groups consider the Boy Scouts of America a hate group for their policy of exclusion? Because, let me tell you, if you were to boycott every company who donated to BSA, you probably couldn't do anything in the US.
The only options here are "Live like an Amish person" or "Support everyone no matter what" ? Really?
This assumes that the BSA is a hate group, which I was generally curious about. I don't know how people feel about it. But, if so, if you boycott Chick-fil-a for their views/donations to anti-gay hate groups, then yes, you should not be a hypocrite and boycott the following groups as well: I don't really know the accuracy of this and don't care enough to look, but it at least puts it in perspective:
So your message is, I'll boycott something as long as it's easy? Because really, you can get chicken/fast food elsewhere. Try flying around in a non-Boeing jet on your next vacation, hehe. But that's only assuming the BSA is a hate group, which in all honesty I don't see.
So just curious, do people here talking about all these hate groups consider the Boy Scouts of America a hate group for their policy of exclusion? Because, let me tell you, if you were to boycott every company who donated to BSA, you probably couldn't do anything in the US.
I'm still kind of boggled that he considers people fanatics for supporting civil rights.
No, that was merely a poorly-worded lumping together of people who are really, really involved in the LGBT movement vs. people who are just general supporters. I was using fanatic in their passion for the cause, which admittedly was not a good choice. Not everyone who supports civil rights is a fanatic, but you can't argue that there are fanatics in every single cause, whether or not it is a righteous one or not. Just because fanatic has a negative connotation in some circles doesn't mean it doesn't apply: "a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics." But like I said, I rescind it in this case.
that king Jr must be a fanatic then.
MLK was not uncritical, though he was extreme. He thought things out even though he believed fervently in his cause. He was passionate, not fanatic.
Smoogy-1689
3DS Friend Code: 1821-8991-4141
PAD ID: 376,540,262
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Better to avoid one thing you know aids hatred than to throw up your hands at the effort involved in removing yourself from all those things.
So just curious, do people here talking about all these hate groups consider the Boy Scouts of America a hate group for their policy of exclusion? Because, let me tell you, if you were to boycott every company who donated to BSA, you probably couldn't do anything in the US.
Yes, I am quite apposed to the LDS take over of the BSA, and not pleased that it gets federal funds while being a hate group. It is however a pretty cleverly hidden one as it isn't very forthcoming about it's anti-gay policies, to the point where a lot of people don't know that they are a hate group. When you also enter in the political difficulties of educating the populace on the BSA, it is pretty hard to get mad at people who ignorantly donate to a institution that has a stellar public image.
I don't get some of the thoughts in here. 2 years ago I found out that Chik-Fil-A was donating money to anti-homosexual organizations. I was a pretty regular customer there at the time and it pissed me off enough that I decided to stop going there because I didn't like the idea that any of the money I gave them was going to support something I was firmly opposed to. I have never been back to any of their locations.
The idea of a boycott is to hurt them financially and make them aware that a portion of the consumer base they market to is not happy. Sure my one decision doesn't mean anything, but since then I've told quite a few people I know about it and they have also agreed it is a heinous act and have stopped going there. Again not a huge amount of people but I'm not the only one outraged by this. The more people that do it, the more people that spread the word, the bigger an impact it has. You can already see the impact of their decision in the reaction from government officials and their partners.
I really don't understand how people could think it doesn't make sense, or that it is not effective. Additionally I don't protect or boycott every injustice I come across, but I do what little I can on the ones that hit close to home or that I feel particularly strong about. This particular case was one of those where I felt it was enough of a problem that it would alter my behavior. I don't see why that seems hypocritical to others or worthy of scorn.
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
Freedom is a double-edge sword with the sharpest of blades.
We honestly can't expect everyone to have the same opinion and you can't honestly expect everyone who shares the same opinion to share the same way of handling their grievance with that opinion. This argument would never come to an end because what is right/wrong to someone is not the same to someone else, even though both parties may be defending the very same thing.
He has a right to say what he said. People will view it as either one mans opinion, or the opinion of an entire company or even an entire religion! CFA has every right to place their business where they want.
People have the right not to shop there.
People have the right to gather in protest either against or for it.
People have the right to kick their ass out.
Elected officials have the right to speak out against targeted entities that may cause disruption or problems within their community.
The subject matter doesn't really come into play when you consider that "everyone" is exercising their rights. And yes, it gets ugly. Look at all the diverse opinions here. Choosing to recognize the struggles we deal with a free nation/society is not so much sending in the white flag, it's about humility and grace in even the most absurd denials of human liberty. We can't cast off any and all issues just because the one we feel is such an atrocity that the world should stop and focus solely on it.
In my humble opinion, there are a lot more people that made that company what it is by hard and honest work that it seems unfair to loop them all into one opinion voiced by a single man. He should be directly held accountable for his words, not the thousands of people under him who are living paycheck to paycheck to feed their kids. It's no ideal, I know - but we should try and remain humble, graceful, and open-minded before lighting the torches and grabbing the pitch forks, staying focused on the issue. But then again, that is just my thoughts on the matter and I am only one man myself.
No they don't. For example, no matter how much they may want to put a franchise in my kitchen, they in fact don't have a right to do that. Nit-picking? Sure, but I am pointing out the people who keep saying this are also missing the point that communities have plenty of legal avenues regarding what type of businesses they allow in their community. Voicing their displeasure is the cheapest and easiest, but far from the only.
And I'm sorry, but Cathy doesn't get to hold his company hostage to his bigotry. You are basically saying that by boycotting CFA I am starving all the poor people who work for him. That's nonsense, and puts me in the dilemma of having to either hurt poor people or give my business to a bigot. That's a false choice.
Bottom line, Cathy is a bigot, and you fight bigotry through soft pressure of making said bigotry socially and financially unacceptable.
Well, clearly they can not put a kitchen in your kitchen, I was assuming the context of this discussion would be a given and I wouldn't have to clarify tedious and trite things. I want to address what you are saying but I feel you've take so many leaps with my words without reading them in the context they were intended that I don't think it would accomplish anything. Thank you for your input though, and please don't apologize for having your own opinions, you may misunderstand or disagree with what I said but that doesn't mean you have to feel apologetic for your own ideas.
I don't get some of the thoughts in here. 2 years ago I found out that Chik-Fil-A was donating money to anti-homosexual organizations. I was a pretty regular customer there at the time and it pissed me off enough that I decided to stop going there because I didn't like the idea that any of the money I gave them was going to support something I was firmly opposed to. I have never been back to any of their locations.
The idea of a boycott is to hurt them financially and make them aware that a portion of the consumer base they market to is not happy. Sure my one decision doesn't mean anything, but since then I've told quite a few people I know about it and they have also agreed it is a heinous act and have stopped going there. Again not a huge amount of people but I'm not the only one outraged by this. The more people that do it, the more people that spread the word, the bigger an impact it has. You can already see the impact of their decision in the reaction from government officials and their partners.
I really don't understand how people could think it doesn't make sense, or that it is not effective. Additionally I don't protect or boycott every injustice I come across, but I do what little I can on the ones that hit close to home or that I feel particularly strong about. This particular case was one of those where I felt it was enough of a problem that it would alter my behavior. I don't see why that seems hypocritical to others or worthy of scorn.
It's not that they're being scorned, it's that people who boycott think people who don't are horrible people. These latter people might not believe that boycotting on a once-removed issue basis is worthwhile, regardless of whether the cause is just or not.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don't get some of the thoughts in here. 2 years ago I found out that Chik-Fil-A was donating money to anti-homosexual organizations. I was a pretty regular customer there at the time and it pissed me off enough that I decided to stop going there because I didn't like the idea that any of the money I gave them was going to support something I was firmly opposed to. I have never been back to any of their locations.
The idea of a boycott is to hurt them financially and make them aware that a portion of the consumer base they market to is not happy. Sure my one decision doesn't mean anything, but since then I've told quite a few people I know about it and they have also agreed it is a heinous act and have stopped going there. Again not a huge amount of people but I'm not the only one outraged by this. The more people that do it, the more people that spread the word, the bigger an impact it has. You can already see the impact of their decision in the reaction from government officials and their partners.
I really don't understand how people could think it doesn't make sense, or that it is not effective. Additionally I don't protect or boycott every injustice I come across, but I do what little I can on the ones that hit close to home or that I feel particularly strong about. This particular case was one of those where I felt it was enough of a problem that it would alter my behavior. I don't see why that seems hypocritical to others or worthy of scorn.
It's not that they're being scorned, it's that people who boycott think people who don't are horrible people. These latter people might not believe that boycotting on a once-removed issue basis is worthwhile, regardless of whether the cause is just or not.
I could care less if people decide they don't want to boycott CFA, that's their decision. I may try and inform them of why I am doing it so at least they are aware of what is going on, but if they decide their chicken sandwich is more important that is their right.
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
As I recall, the only person who got flak for not boycotting was Smoogy, for declaring that he didn't give a shit about anything Chik-Fil-A did, their chicken was delicious, and he was going to increase his consumption.
I really don't care Chick-fil-a's stance on anything, since their food is so damn amazing. Long live a #1 with a lemonade!
Not eating their food you won't.
Nice to know we live in a country where people can get away condemning minorities as long as they make food that will kill you.
You're assuming I'm eating Chick-fil-a for every meal or something. In fact, it's one of the healthiest fast food options out there. Who was condemned? Have you actually read what Cathy said, because it just sounds like you're eating up what CNN is spoon-feeding to you.
I really don't care Chick-fil-a's stance on anything, since their food is so damn amazing. Long live a #1 with a lemonade!
Not eating their food you won't.
Nice to know we live in a country where people can get away condemning minorities as long as they make food that will kill you.
You're assuming I'm eating Chick-fil-a for every meal or something. In fact, it's one of the healthiest fast food options out there. Who was condemned? Have you actually read what Cathy said, because it just sounds like you're eating up what CNN is spoon-feeding to you.
just because Cathy gives tons of money to organizations that hate gay people (among other groups, basically anyone who isn't a straight white Christian) and try to restrict their rights (often successfully), that doesn't make him a bad person
oh wait, it totally does, and eating at Chik-Fil-A supports that effort
to be fair I read this wrong the first time around, but the entire crux of my argument for the past few pages has hinged on the hypothetical that people (not necessarily existent in this thread) who do not believe in this issue boycott's effectiveness (or greater) would be put off by the supposition that eating at chik-fil-a reflects badly on their character. The argument still exists that not eating at chik-fil-a is better than nothing, but there is a chance that the effect is actually not worth the effort, and is more a symbolic rather than practical gesture which people can choose to scoff at.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Why are cows the mascot for a chicken restaurant place?
What is the five letter curse that Kermit is letting out?
Why are the cows illiterate?
The Chik-Fil-A mascots are a bunch of cows trying to encourage you to eat at Chik-Fil-A because they don't serve beef.
Kermit is cursing Chik-Fil-A to inform viewers not "in the know" of who the cows are.
Bert and Ernie are getting married because, well lets face it their relationship was always pretty apparent and I for one am happy to see they can finally be up front about it and live happily.
Oh and the cows are illiterate because they never went to school on account of being cows.
Delphinidaes on
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
I really don't care Chick-fil-a's stance on anything, since their food is so damn amazing. Long live a #1 with a lemonade!
Not eating their food you won't.
Nice to know we live in a country where people can get away condemning minorities as long as they make food that will kill you.
You're assuming I'm eating Chick-fil-a for every meal or something. In fact, it's one of the healthiest fast food options out there. Who was condemned? Have you actually read what Cathy said, because it just sounds like you're eating up what CNN is spoon-feeding to you.
I wanna eat at Chick-fil-a once just to see what the big fuckin' deal is. None nearby, though. Not losing sleep over it, either way.
It's super tasty Glad I live in VA with ready access to them, though I limit myself to once a month visits.
I don't care what he says - he gives money to hate groups.
to be fair I read this wrong the first time around, but the entire crux of my argument for the past few pages has hinged on the hypothetical that people (not necessarily existent in this thread) who do not believe in this issue boycott's effectiveness (or greater) would be put off by the supposition that eating at chik-fil-a reflects badly on their character. The argument still exists that not eating at chik-fil-a is better than nothing, but there is a chance that the effect is actually not worth the effort, and is more a symbolic rather than practical gesture which people can choose to scoff at.
I'm pretty sure AngelHedgie was saying fuck to the Chick-fil-a CEO not someone who eats there, although I guess it could be both.
But, once again, not eating at Chick-fil-a does not take effort. It takes a lack of effort. There is, literally, nothing you have to do to not eat at Chick-fil-a.
I really don't care Chick-fil-a's stance on anything, since their food is so damn amazing. Long live a #1 with a lemonade!
Not eating their food you won't.
Nice to know we live in a country where people can get away condemning minorities as long as they make food that will kill you.
You're assuming I'm eating Chick-fil-a for every meal or something. In fact, it's one of the healthiest fast food options out there. Who was condemned? Have you actually read what Cathy said, because it just sounds like you're eating up what CNN is spoon-feeding to you.
I really don't care Chick-fil-a's stance on anything, since their food is so damn amazing. Long live a #1 with a lemonade!
Not eating their food you won't.
Nice to know we live in a country where people can get away condemning minorities as long as they make food that will kill you.
You're assuming I'm eating Chick-fil-a for every meal or something. In fact, it's one of the healthiest fast food options out there. Who was condemned? Have you actually read what Cathy said, because it just sounds like you're eating up what CNN is spoon-feeding to you.
just because Cathy gives tons of money to organizations that hate gay people (among other groups, basically anyone who isn't a straight white Christian) and try to restrict their rights (often successfully), that doesn't make him a bad person
oh wait, it totally does, and eating at Chik-Fil-A supports that effort
to be fair I read this wrong the first time around, but the entire crux of my argument for the past few pages has hinged on the hypothetical that people (not necessarily existent in this thread) who do not believe in this issue boycott's effectiveness (or greater) would be put off by the supposition that eating at chik-fil-a reflects badly on their character. The argument still exists that not eating at chik-fil-a is better than nothing, but there is a chance that the effect is actually not worth the effort, and is more a symbolic rather than practical gesture which people can choose to scoff at.
I'm pretty sure AngelHedgie was saying fuck to the Chick-fil-a CEO not someone who eats there, although I guess it could be both.
But, once again, not eating at Chick-fil-a does not take effort. It takes a lack of effort. There is, literally, nothing you have to do to not eat at Chick-fil-a.
My high school story that actually happened and the taco bell story that never happened beg to differ; additionally I would like to testify that colleges offer a limited selection of fast food to the pedestrian students, and some in the lower states are basically chik fil a or the terrible airport style pizza hut
The point is that fast food is life and the universe
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
As I recall, the only person who got flak for not boycotting was Smoogy, for declaring that he didn't give a shit about anything Chik-Fil-A did, their chicken was delicious, and he was going to increase his consumption.
In fact, I gave up Chick-fil-a a few weeks ago because as has also been stated, it's not the healthiest. It's healthy compared to a lot of fast food places, but generally all that stuff is bad. Although I did cave on Saturday when I needed to take a friend out for a quick bite before the airport...And I do give a shit about what they do/beliefs they espouse, however, it's not going to affect my purchasing decisions. I would be happier if they and every organization were exactly in line with my beliefs, but that world doesn't exist.
For what it's worth, I know it's impossible to not be hypocritical and not support everything; people have to be selective. I just find it amusing when the new fad thing that it's cool to hate (usually heavily fueled by the media) crops up and then the people who don't hate it are ostracised for that lack of hatred. People just need to realize that if you patron Chick-fil-a, this does not mean that you support anti-gay rhetoric/policy just as those who are against the boycott should understand why those who do choose that path.
Sometimes it's just fun to play devil's advocate, especially because Chick-fil-a is a cherished organization of mine and a lot of people are slinging hate against it without knowing the full story; I'm never a fan of throwing the baby out with the bathwater to utilize a heavily overused expression. I wish their CEO didn't have the beliefs he did, but then again, his Christian beliefs have also led to a lot of good things that Chick-fil-a does (which I think also holds true for some of those "hate groups" people seem to think Chick-fil-a donated to. Maybe some are or have wrong beliefs on certain things. But I was a proud member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes for many years and in my tenure there we did volunteer/community work that most assuredly wasn't fueled by hate).
Until Chick-fil-a starts discriminating against homosexuals, not hiring people due to their sexuality, or other such extreme measures, I think this issue is overblown. (Side note: I wonder how the many gay people who work for Chick-fil-a are feeling right now?) The good thing that's going to happen is, I guarantee Chick-fil-a will stop donating to the groups deemed anti-gay by the vast majority of people and institutional change will happen concerning their view on this, even if only in a small way.
I think this article sums up a lot of stuff, that I wish other Christians would read. Who'da thunk it, a voice of reason amidst chaos! And I should have listened to it as well before being flippant to boycotters.
Smoogy on
Smoogy-1689
3DS Friend Code: 1821-8991-4141
PAD ID: 376,540,262
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Eating fast food is basically never the baseline of one's available diet.
There. Fixed all your problems with cheaper easier and probably healthier food.
You can thank me later.
If only it were that easy, I'd probably be a millionaire by now
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I don't think there's confusion. At least no more than those people who think Mitt Romney and his ilk won't do what they say they want to do because "No one really acts that way." I think it's more some form of cognitive dissonance combine with a hugely gross lack of empathy.
There's confusion. At least, anecdotally, I can say there's a lot of confusion in my local congregation on this point.
Then color me scratching my head. People confused over a group that hates gays and pulls Muppets toys over it and the concept of that group putting its money where its mouth is is like being confused over going to the manure factory and it smelling like shit.
Ironically, I suspect there's a lot of overlap between those who support Chick-Fil-A's stance and the group of people who set fire to a pile of Dixie Chicks records.
People just need to realize that if you patronize Chick-fil-a, this does not mean that you support anti-gay rhetoric/policy just as those who are against the boycott should understand why those who do choose that path.
You may not support the demonization of gays emotionally when you eat at CFA, but you do support it monetarily. Both matter.
People just need to realize that if you patronize Chick-fil-a, this does not mean that you support anti-gay rhetoric/policy just as those who are against the boycott should understand why those who do choose that path.
You may not support the demonization of gays emotionally when you eat at CFA, but you do support it monetarily. Both matter.
You just can't be pleased and, frankly, I don't think I'd want to. The world is not black and white, regardless of your view on it.
Smoogy-1689
3DS Friend Code: 1821-8991-4141
PAD ID: 376,540,262
People just need to realize that if you patronize Chick-fil-a, this does not mean that you support anti-gay rhetoric/policy just as those who are against the boycott should understand why those who do choose that path.
You may not support the demonization of gays emotionally when you eat at CFA, but you do support it monetarily. Both matter.
You just can't be pleased and, frankly, I don't think I'd want to. The world is not black and white, regardless of your view on it.
In general, no, it tends not to be. But eating at a place that gives money to anti-gay organizations means you're supporting those efforts, even if only indirectly.
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
The world isn't black and white, but this very particular and specific issue is. You keep trying to muddle it by insisting everyone police every purchase they make, which completely dodges the issue.
Posts
No, that was merely a poorly-worded lumping together of people who are really, really involved in the LGBT movement vs. people who are just general supporters. I was using fanatic in their passion for the cause, which admittedly was not a good choice. Not everyone who supports civil rights is a fanatic, but you can't argue that there are fanatics in every single cause, whether or not it is a righteous one or not. Just because fanatic has a negative connotation in some circles doesn't mean it doesn't apply: "a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics." But like I said, I rescind it in this case.
3DS Friend Code: 1821-8991-4141
PAD ID: 376,540,262
The only options here are "Live like an Amish person" or "Support everyone no matter what" ? Really?
Does BSA donate to groups that are lobbying public policy against homosexuals?
that king Jr must be a fanatic then.
CFA owner is a bigot. I don't want my money going to him. I don't owe CFA my business, it is their job to convince me to buy from them. Their owner being an open bigot works against that goal.
That is basically my line of thought regarding the issue. We can wax about the whether or not boycotts work until the cows come home, and we would get no where. However, it is historically clear that applying social and financial pressure to people with bigoted views works in suppressing bigotry. In that regard I see no reason a person should buy products owned by anti-homosexuals, segregationists, or anti-suffragists.
This assumes that the BSA is a hate group, which I was generally curious about. I don't know how people feel about it. But, if so, if you boycott Chick-fil-a for their views/donations to anti-gay hate groups, then yes, you should not be a hypocrite and boycott the following groups as well: I don't really know the accuracy of this and don't care enough to look, but it at least puts it in perspective:
Scouting For All list
So your message is, I'll boycott something as long as it's easy? Because really, you can get chicken/fast food elsewhere. Try flying around in a non-Boeing jet on your next vacation, hehe. But that's only assuming the BSA is a hate group, which in all honesty I don't see.
MLK was not uncritical, though he was extreme. He thought things out even though he believed fervently in his cause. He was passionate, not fanatic.
3DS Friend Code: 1821-8991-4141
PAD ID: 376,540,262
Looking over that list, Boeing/Westinghouse/UPS are the only three that stand out that I use.
That's pretty good. I do a pretty good job not buying from those guys listed. I'm okay with that.
I guess I buy gas occasionally, too.
Taking over BSA, and kicking out all of the Atheists and gays.
Yes, I am quite apposed to the LDS take over of the BSA, and not pleased that it gets federal funds while being a hate group. It is however a pretty cleverly hidden one as it isn't very forthcoming about it's anti-gay policies, to the point where a lot of people don't know that they are a hate group. When you also enter in the political difficulties of educating the populace on the BSA, it is pretty hard to get mad at people who ignorantly donate to a institution that has a stellar public image.
The idea of a boycott is to hurt them financially and make them aware that a portion of the consumer base they market to is not happy. Sure my one decision doesn't mean anything, but since then I've told quite a few people I know about it and they have also agreed it is a heinous act and have stopped going there. Again not a huge amount of people but I'm not the only one outraged by this. The more people that do it, the more people that spread the word, the bigger an impact it has. You can already see the impact of their decision in the reaction from government officials and their partners.
I really don't understand how people could think it doesn't make sense, or that it is not effective. Additionally I don't protect or boycott every injustice I come across, but I do what little I can on the ones that hit close to home or that I feel particularly strong about. This particular case was one of those where I felt it was enough of a problem that it would alter my behavior. I don't see why that seems hypocritical to others or worthy of scorn.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
Well, clearly they can not put a kitchen in your kitchen, I was assuming the context of this discussion would be a given and I wouldn't have to clarify tedious and trite things. I want to address what you are saying but I feel you've take so many leaps with my words without reading them in the context they were intended that I don't think it would accomplish anything. Thank you for your input though, and please don't apologize for having your own opinions, you may misunderstand or disagree with what I said but that doesn't mean you have to feel apologetic for your own ideas.
The town that I live in is very averse to chain resturant.
Ann Arbor, iirc, banned a Hooters from opening.
This kind of thing happens all the time in cities.
It's up to the town and by proxy their elected representatives to decide what a city needs, not corporations.
It's not that they're being scorned, it's that people who boycott think people who don't are horrible people. These latter people might not believe that boycotting on a once-removed issue basis is worthwhile, regardless of whether the cause is just or not.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don't think that people that don't boycott are horrible people.
Does someone else think that?
I could care less if people decide they don't want to boycott CFA, that's their decision. I may try and inform them of why I am doing it so at least they are aware of what is going on, but if they decide their chicken sandwich is more important that is their right.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
what's there to get?
Why are cows the mascot for a chicken restaurant place?
What is the five letter curse that Kermit is letting out?
Why are the cows illiterate?
to be fair I read this wrong the first time around, but the entire crux of my argument for the past few pages has hinged on the hypothetical that people (not necessarily existent in this thread) who do not believe in this issue boycott's effectiveness (or greater) would be put off by the supposition that eating at chik-fil-a reflects badly on their character. The argument still exists that not eating at chik-fil-a is better than nothing, but there is a chance that the effect is actually not worth the effort, and is more a symbolic rather than practical gesture which people can choose to scoff at.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The Chik-Fil-A mascots are a bunch of cows trying to encourage you to eat at Chik-Fil-A because they don't serve beef.
Kermit is cursing Chik-Fil-A to inform viewers not "in the know" of who the cows are.
Bert and Ernie are getting married because, well lets face it their relationship was always pretty apparent and I for one am happy to see they can finally be up front about it and live happily.
Oh and the cows are illiterate because they never went to school on account of being cows.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
I'm pretty sure AngelHedgie was saying fuck to the Chick-fil-a CEO not someone who eats there, although I guess it could be both.
But, once again, not eating at Chick-fil-a does not take effort. It takes a lack of effort. There is, literally, nothing you have to do to not eat at Chick-fil-a.
My high school story that actually happened and the taco bell story that never happened beg to differ; additionally I would like to testify that colleges offer a limited selection of fast food to the pedestrian students, and some in the lower states are basically chik fil a or the terrible airport style pizza hut
The point is that fast food is life and the universe
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's about goddamn time.
There. Fixed all your problems with cheaper easier and probably healthier food.
You can thank me later.
In fact, I gave up Chick-fil-a a few weeks ago because as has also been stated, it's not the healthiest. It's healthy compared to a lot of fast food places, but generally all that stuff is bad. Although I did cave on Saturday when I needed to take a friend out for a quick bite before the airport...And I do give a shit about what they do/beliefs they espouse, however, it's not going to affect my purchasing decisions. I would be happier if they and every organization were exactly in line with my beliefs, but that world doesn't exist.
For what it's worth, I know it's impossible to not be hypocritical and not support everything; people have to be selective. I just find it amusing when the new fad thing that it's cool to hate (usually heavily fueled by the media) crops up and then the people who don't hate it are ostracised for that lack of hatred. People just need to realize that if you patron Chick-fil-a, this does not mean that you support anti-gay rhetoric/policy just as those who are against the boycott should understand why those who do choose that path.
Sometimes it's just fun to play devil's advocate, especially because Chick-fil-a is a cherished organization of mine and a lot of people are slinging hate against it without knowing the full story; I'm never a fan of throwing the baby out with the bathwater to utilize a heavily overused expression. I wish their CEO didn't have the beliefs he did, but then again, his Christian beliefs have also led to a lot of good things that Chick-fil-a does (which I think also holds true for some of those "hate groups" people seem to think Chick-fil-a donated to. Maybe some are or have wrong beliefs on certain things. But I was a proud member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes for many years and in my tenure there we did volunteer/community work that most assuredly wasn't fueled by hate).
Until Chick-fil-a starts discriminating against homosexuals, not hiring people due to their sexuality, or other such extreme measures, I think this issue is overblown. (Side note: I wonder how the many gay people who work for Chick-fil-a are feeling right now?) The good thing that's going to happen is, I guarantee Chick-fil-a will stop donating to the groups deemed anti-gay by the vast majority of people and institutional change will happen concerning their view on this, even if only in a small way.
I think this article sums up a lot of stuff, that I wish other Christians would read. Who'da thunk it, a voice of reason amidst chaos! And I should have listened to it as well before being flippant to boycotters.
3DS Friend Code: 1821-8991-4141
PAD ID: 376,540,262
If only it were that easy, I'd probably be a millionaire by now
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Ironically, I suspect there's a lot of overlap between those who support Chick-Fil-A's stance and the group of people who set fire to a pile of Dixie Chicks records.
You just can't be pleased and, frankly, I don't think I'd want to. The world is not black and white, regardless of your view on it.
3DS Friend Code: 1821-8991-4141
PAD ID: 376,540,262
No, those people just fund it monetarily.
Not deliberately perhaps, but they do fund it.